Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
DECISION
GUERRERO , J : p
Automatic review of the judgment of the Circuit Criminal Court, 14th Judicial District, Cebu
City, in Criminal Case No. CCC-XIV-837-Cebu, finding the accused DIOSDADO
COMENDADOR guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of ROBBERY with HOMICIDE,
and sentencing him to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH, and to indemnify the heirs of
the deceased Jungie Zaragosa the sum of P625.00, the value of the unrecovered property
plus the sum of P12,000.00, without any subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency,
and to pay the costs.
The trial court based its ruling on accused's plea of guilty which it found to have been
"freely and voluntarily" given and reiterated despite the Court's admonition that the death
penalty may be imposed, on the accused's extrajudicial confession, marked Exhibit "J", as
well as on the following evidence which the Court required the prosecution to present to
determine the circumstances obtaining in the case:
1. Edilberto Zaragoza, a farmer residing in Cadiz City testified that he is the father of
the 22-year old deceased Jungie Zaragoza; that he knows the accused very well as he is a
helper in his house; that on October 22, 1973; his son, who was working in Zamboanga City
and at that time, on vacation in their hacienda, asked permission to leave for Cagayan de
Oro via Cebu; that the accused advised his son that "if he goes Cebu without any
companion they will just tickle him with a knife and then get his bag and since he was very
familiar with Cebu, he should accompany him to Cebu." 1
He likewise declared on the witness stand that his son had money of his own but despite
that, he still gave him P200.00 to make his vacation worthwhile. He told his brother to give
the money. Further said that his son brought along with him a bag of clothes and wore a
Citizen Day Date wrist watch, identified as Exhibit "A", with an engraving "Jungie Zaragosa"
on the side. Later, he learned that his son had been robbed and Killed in Toledo City and
that he went there to bring home his body. 2
2. Dolores Reponte, a farmer residing at Cantabako, Toledo City, declared on the
witness stand that at about 12:00 noon on October 25, 1973, while she was drying ypil-ypil
leaves by the side of the hill, two passers-by who turned out to be the accused and the
deceased in this case, asked her if there was any road where they could pass. To which
query, she replied that there was none and the only place which they could reach would be
Oling. After the accused remarked that he is familiar with the place, both of them
proceeded towards the bushes. At around 5:00 o'clock, she was informed by Patrolman
Panda-an of the presence of a dead man at a distance from her farm and when she went
there to see, she recognized the man lying dead as the companion of the accused. 3
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
3. Angelo Obenque, a farmer and resident of Media Once, Toledo City, testified that he
knows the accused in this case very well as the latter happened to be his neighbor for
fifteen years while residing in Tuburan. At about 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon on October
25, 1973, the accused arrived in his house with a watch and a travelling bag, identified as
Exhibits "A" and "C" respectively. When asked where he came from, the accused said that
he had been to Cebu City and also Talisay, where he had just taken a bath. He likewise said
that he had some wet clothes, including two pairs of pants, identified as Exhibits "D" and
"E", which he took out to dry. When he went upstairs, he pulled out from his pocket a wallet
where he picked out two P50.00 bills and one P20.00 bill and he place them on the window
sill to dry. After eating his supper with them at about 5:00 o'clock, he begged leave to go
around the place and returned at 8:00 o'clock in the evening. He spent the night with them
and at 5:00 o'clock the following morning, he left. 4
4. Dioscoro Panda-an, a police corporal in Toledo City, declared that at about 3:30
o'clock in the afternoon of October 25, 1973, while he was at the police precinct, he
received a report from the barrio captain about a dead person found. He immediately
proceeded to the scene which was about two kilometers from the national road. He
described the place as a forest with thick trees and no inhabitants, the nearest hut which
was not even occupied being about one hundred meters from the creek.
Upon arriving thereat, he took steps to preserve the scene. He found the fatal weapon,
identified as Exhibit "F" about thirteen feet from the body of the deceased, and a pair of
shoes floating in the water near the body, identified as Exhibit "G". He then requested the
help of the PC to guard the place and called for a medico-legal officer and a photographer.
Thereafter, he asked the help of the people who repaired to the scene to get the body of
the deceased to Toledo City for an autopsy. 5
5. Edilberto Evangelista, a police lieutenant, testified the on October 26, 1973, he
received a tip that the accused was in Tuburan. After directing a certain Sgt. Borres to
verify the tip, they proceeded to the place and sought the assistance of the local police. At
around 1:30 o'clock in the morning of the following day, upon arriving at the house of the
accused, they woke up the occupants and interrogated the accused who readily admitted
the killing and turned over the wrist watch, the bag full of clothes and the wallet containing
P70.00 marked as Exhibit "H". They likewise gathered from the accused he got P122.00
from the deceased and that he killed because he was in dire need of money for his wife
and children. 6
6. Gabriel Trocio, Jr., Special Counsel of Toledo City, declared on the witness stand
that on October 27, 1973, the accused went to his office to sign a prepared extra-judicial
confession, identified as Exhibit "J". As an administering officer, he informed the accused
of his rights under the law, namely: that he had the right to remain silent and to be assisted
by counsel. To this statement, the accused said that since everything is true, he will sign
the same notwithstanding the absence of counsel. He likewise inquired whether the
confession was voluntary on his part and as a standard operating procedure, he requested
a City Health Department physician to examine the body of the accused. Thereafter, he
requested the accused to read the confession and the accused even read it aloud and then
affixed his signature. 7
The extra-judicial confession of the accused presented by the prosecution as Exhibit "J"
reads as follows in English as translated from the original Cebuano dialect: (Original
Records, pp. 6-7)
"CONFESSION OF DIOSDADO CANTORNE COMENDADOR TAKEN BY SGT.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
ERASMO M. MENDEZ, MEMBER OF THE TOLEDO CITY POLICE DEPT. AT THE
OFFICE OF THE COMPLAINT AND INVESTIGATION SECTION THIS 27th DAY OF
OCTOBER 1973, IN THE PRESENCE OF LT. EDILBERTO M. EVANGELISTA, ATTY.
ROMEO RAMOLETE.
INITIAL STATEMENT: This investigation that I am conducting now is about
an incident which you have a participation and you are informed of your
rights based on our Constitution, to hire the services of a lawyer during this
investigation and you also have the right not to answer questions which you
think will incriminate you, do you understand?
Q Why are you here now in the office of the Police of Toledo?
A Last Thursday, October 25, 1973, at about 12:00 noon in sitio Apid,
Cantabaco, Toledo.
Q What else did you take from Jungie Zaragosa after the incident?
A A wristwatch, Citizen day date, 27 jewels, super king (with engraved
name of the victim (Jungie Zaragosa) (suspect identifying the
watch); and clothes of Jungie Zaragosa and pants, polo shirt, jacket
that were packed inside a brown travelling bag.
Q What did you use in killing Jungie Zaragosa at that time?
A A hunting knife nine (9) inches long with carve handle with bronze ring
(suspect identifying the fatal weapon when shown to him for identity)
Q Who is the owner of the hunting knife you used in killing him?
A Yes, I killed him because I did not leave him until he died.
Q After killing Jungie Zaragosa, what did you do?
A I took his wristwatch from his left wrist, then took his trousers off and
run away because I became afraid of his looks.
Q Where did you go when you ran away from Jungie Zaragosa?
A I proceeded to Don Andres Soriano, Lutopan, Toledo City in order to
take a bus to my friend Angelo Ubenque in Media Once.
Q What did you do in the house of Angelo Ubenque at that time?
A I passed the time there and I was thinking of going home to Sumon
Tuburan, Cebu that following dawn and on that early evening we were
drinking in the house of Angelo Ubenque.
Q How much did you spend in the drinking that you had in the house of
Angelo Ubenque?
A A CBC bus No. 122 and I arrived Tuburan at 8:00 in the morning,
October 26, 1973.
Q Why did you happen to be with Jungie Zaragosa from Cadiz to Cebu?
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
A Because I was requested by the father of Jungie Zaragosa to conduct
him to Cebu because he was leaving for Cagayan de Oro.
Q Did you know that Jungie Zaragosa had money in his position?.
A Yes, I know because I was the one given by his uncle the amount of
One Hundred Eighty Two Pesos (182.00).
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 27th day of October 1973 at Toledo
City, Philippines.
(SGD.) DIOSDADO CANTORNE COMENDADOR
Affiant
(SGD.) GABRIEL L. TROCIO JR.
Special Counsel
Toledo City"
WITNESSES:
1. (SGD.) MONTEMAYOR MAGDALENO
2. (SGD.) COLUMBO R. LISTON
The prosecution, after submitting its evidence, rested its case. The defense, however, did
not present any evidence nor did the accused take the witness stand. The case was,
thereupon, submitted for decision.
In this review en consulta of the judgment of the trial court, which as aforestated,
convicted Diosdado Comendador of the crime of robbery with homicide and sentenced
him to death the accused-appellant raised the following assignment of errors:
I. The trial court erred is not taking appellant s conditional plea as a plea of
not guilty.
II. The trial court erred in admitting Exhibit "J", the extra-judicial confession of
the appellant.
III. The trial court erred in finding that the guilt of the appellant was proved
beyond reasonable doubt.
IV. The trial court erred in finding against the appellant the aggravating
circumstances of craft, uninhabited place and abuse of confidence and obvious
ungratefulness. 8
Explaining said provision, this Court held in Magtoto vs. Monguera, 63 SCRA 4, that a
confession obtained from a person under investigation for the commission of an offense,
who has not been informed of his right (to silence and) to counsel, is inadmissible in
evidence if the same had been obtained after the effectivity of the New Constitution on
January 17, 1973. Conversely, such confession is admissible in evidence against the
accused, if the same had been obtained before the effectivity of the New Constitution,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
even if presented after January 17, 1973, and even if he had not been informed of his right
to counsel, since no law gave the accused the right to be so informed before that date.
In the case at bar, the extra-judicial confession given by the accused was made on October
27, 1973 (after the effectivity of the New Constitution). Nevertheless, since the confession
itself indicates on its face that the accused was advised of his right to remain silent and
also of his right to counsel but he not only waived both rights but also failed to contradict,
deny or rebut the same by failing to take the witness stand although he was assisted by
two defense counsels, We find no legal impediment or obstacle in admitting the said
confession after its genuineness and authenticity had been duly proven. The second
assignment of error of accused-appellant is, therefore, without merit.
Even without the accused-appellant's extrajudicial confession quoted above, his plea of
guilty coupled with the prosecution's evidence pointing to him as the author of the crime,
proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. We reject the claim of the defense that the
presentation and offer of the prosecution evidence indicate that the trial court, upon
whose directive the prosecution acted, entertained doubts on the plea of accused-
appellant.
Section 5, Rule 118 of the Rules of Court itself provides that "where the defendant pleads
guilty to a complaint or information, if the trial court accepts the plea and has discretion as
to the punishment for the offense, it may hear witnesses to determine what punishment
shall be imposed." (emphasis supplied)
As early as U.S. vs. Talbanos, 6 Phil. 541, it has been held that Courts of First Instance may
sentence defendants in criminal cases who plead guilty to the offense charged in the
complaint, without the necessity of taking testimony. But it was likewise held therein that
while there is no law requiring it, yet in every case under the plea of guilty where the penalty
may be death, it is advisable for the court to call witnesses for the purpose of establishing
the guilt and degree of culpability of the defendant. LexLib
Long settled is the rule, therefore, that "the proper and prudent course to follow where the
accused enters a plea of 'guilty' to capital offenses especially where he is ignorant with
little or no education, is to take testimony not only to satisfy the trial judge himself but to
aid the Supreme Court in determining whether the accused really and truly understood and
comprehended the meaning, full significance and consequences of his plea." (People vs.
Bulalake, 106 Phil. 767, 770; People vs. Baluyot, 75 SCRA 148; People vs. Duaban, L-31912,
August 24, 1979). There can, therefore, be no error imputed to the trial court for having
directed the prosecution to present evidence after the accused-appellant pleaded guilty.
From the testimonies and exhibits thus presented, We hold that the several circumstantial
evidence more than suffice to overcome the presumption of innocence. While there was no
eyewitness to the killing, there are indubitable proof that he is guilty thereof. Prosecution
witness Dolores Reponte pointed to him as the person she saw with the deceased just a
few hours before the latter's body was found. Another prosecution witness, Angelo
Obenque, declared under oath that the accused-appellant dropped by his house on that
fateful day with a watch, a travelling bag, two pairs of wet pants, and a wallet containing
wet bills amounting to P120.00, all proven to belong to the victim. Finally, Edilberto
Evangelista, a police lieutenant, also testified that accused-appellant readily admitted the
robbery and killing and turned over the aforementioned things he took from the victim. All
these incriminating circumstantial evidence, having remained unexplained, make out a clear
case against accused-appellant. As this Court said in People vs. Servillano Ma. Modesto, et
al., 25 SCRA 36:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
"A rule of ancient respectability now molded into tradition is that circumstantial
evidence suffices to convict only if the following requisites concur: (a) there is
more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived
are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
In Our considered view, the above standards have been satisfactorily met and complied
with in the instant case.
We disagree with accused-appellant's argument that even assuming that the extra-judicial
confession is admissible, it is not sufficient to convict because the evidence of the corpus
delicti consisting of the death certificate and the necropsy report were not properly
identified. prLL
It should be remembered that the rule that an accused person cannot be convicted upon a
mere confession without some independent proof indicating that a crime has been
committed, does not mean that every element of the crime must be made out by proof
apart from the confession, but merely that there should be some evidence apart from the
confession, tending to show that a crime has been committed, as for example, in a case of
homicide, there should be some proof of the fact of death, as by the production of the
dead body. The rule requiring independent proof of corpus delicti is merely intended to
guard against conviction upon false confession. 9
In the case at bar, despite the failure of the death certificate and the necropsy report to
serve as evidence, the fact of death of Jungie Zaragosa is conclusively shown by the
testimonies of the father, Edilberto Zaragosa, and the other prosecution witnesses:
Dolores Reponte and Dioscoro Panda-an. They all declared on the witness stand that they
saw the body of the deceased having marks that indicate foul play. In addition thereto,
prosecution witness Panda-an identified in court the death weapon he saw about 13 feet
from the body of the deceased as well as the photographs of the deceased at the scene of
the crime which he requested a photographer to take. All these prove that a crime had in
fact been committed.
Moreover, it has been held that the absence of death or burial certificate ought not, in the
least, put in doubt the reality of the killing. 1 0 Corpus delicit, being the fact of the
commission of the crime, may be proved by testimonial evidence. 1 1
Notwithstanding the plea of guilty, however, which, as a rule, constitutes also an admission
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
of all the aggravating circumstances set forth in the information, We hold that the three
aggravating circumstances listed therein, namely: 1. craft; 2. uninhabited place; and 3.
abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness, are not supported by the evidence. In
People vs. Corachea, L-30101, July 16, 1979, citing People vs. Galapia, 84 SCRA 526, this
Court held:
"The rule is that a judicial confession of guilt admits all the material facts alleged
in the information including the aggravating circumstances listed therein. But,
where such circumstances are disproven by the evidence, it should be disallowed
in the judgment. Thus, in People vs. Gungab (64 Phil. 779), the Court ruled 'That
when an accused who lacks instruction, pleads guilty to the crime of parricide
described in the information as having been committed with the aggravating
circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation and his testimony given
under oath before the trial court, upon his petition, fails to show the existence of
such aggravating circumstances, his plea of guilty shall be understood as being
limited to the admission of having committed the crime of parricide, not of having
done so with treachery and evident premeditation."'
Thus, the aggravating circumstance of craft in the commission of the crime based on the
allegation in the information that the accused employed a cunning scheme by acting as
guide professing to be familiar with Cebu City, should not and cannot be appreciated as an
aggravating circumstance because it is not such an intellectual trickery or cunning device,
scheme or artifice resorted to by the accused in order to carry out his evil design. The
accused may have been actually familiar with Cebu City as he was a resident of Sumon,
Tuburan, Cebu. He may also have been motivated with good intentions to act as guide at
the start of the trip from Cadiz City but only decided to kill the victim upon reaching the
forest area at Sitio Apid, Cantabaco, Toledo City. And there is no showing that the accused
merely pretended to be familiar with Cebu City.
The aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place which is alleged in the information is
that "(t)he accused deliberately lured the victim in such a place with the pretense to visit
his wife fully knowing that the victim is not acquainted with the place to ensure the
commission of the offense" should not also be appreciated against said accused because
the evidence shows that the body of the victim was found a few hours after his death, a
fact indicating that the place is not unpeopled. In U.S. vs. Devela, 3 Phil. 625, such
aggravating circumstance was not considered as the brother of the deceased arrived at
the scene of the crime shortly after the wounding of the deceased and immediately
thereafter the officers of the law were in pursuit of the defendants. LLphil
Separate Opinions
TEEHANKEE, J., concurring:
I concur and write this brief opinion to maintain my dissent in the cases of Magtoto vs.
Manguera (63 SCRA 4, 27) as against the reiteration of its ruling in the opinion written for
the Court by Mr. Justice Juvenal K. Guerrero. I have maintained such dissent in later cases
invoking the Magtoto ruling as per my separate opinions in People vs. Dumdum, 92 SCRA
198, 204 (1979), People vs. Garcia, L-40106, March 13, and People vs. Villacores, L-35969,
May 16, 1980, wherein I urged that such ruling be subjected to reexamination in an
appropriate case in the light of the compelling reasons given by the late Chief Justice Fred
Ruiz Castro and Mr. Chief Justice Fernando, then Senior Associate Justice, in their
respective dissents therein. prcd
The accused's extra-judicial confession herein, having been given on October 27, 1973
without counsel, was clearly inadmissible in evidence under the provisions of Section 20 of
the Bill of Rights of the 1973 Constitution quoted on page 8 of the main opinion. As
against the ruling therein that the confession was admissible "even if he [the accused] had
not been informed of his right to counsel, since no law gave the accused the right to be so
informed before that date [January 17, 1973]", I hold with the late Chief Justice Castro, as
articulated by him in his dissenting opinion in Magtoto "that the particular provision of
Section 20 of Article IV of the 1973 Constitution which invalidates a confession obtained
during custodial interrogation from a detained person who at such interrogation was not
afforded the assistance of counsel, should operate retrospectively as of June 15, 1954
when Republic Act 1083 introduced the second paragraph of Article 125 of the Revised
Penal Code recognizing the right of a detained person to counsel in any custodial inquest,"
and "that the second paragraph of Article 125 makes it an obligation on the part of any
detaining officer to inform the person detained of his right to counsel before the very
inception of custodial inquest, and that this obligation was made a statutory one as early
as in the year 1954." (63 SCRA at pages 21, 24).
Neither will it do to aver that the denial of such rights to silence and to counsel were
waived by the accused as indicated by the confession itself" on its face" (main opinion, at
page 9). It has been long settled that such waiver of constitutional rights must be clearly,
intelligently and voluntarily given and the burden of showing such express waiver has not
been discharged by the prosecution. Certainly, the perfunctory statement most likely
placed in the mouth of the accused in the written record of the "confession" that "I don't
need a lawyer" cannot be said to constitute a good and valid waiver. So, the Chief Justice
held for the Court in People vs. Caquioa, L-38975, January 17, 1980, in dismissing the
People's petition for admission of the accused's extra-judicial confession which had been
taken by the police without the assistance of counsel, after noting that "(I)t was not shown
that the alleged waiver was given freely and voluntarily. The questioning was rather
perfunctory."
As indicated above, I nevertheless concur with the Court's judgment of conviction, since
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2017 cdasiaonline.com
even with the exclusion of the confession, the prosecutor's evidence together with the
accused's guilty plea in open court amply prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Footnotes